Account pulse — one call: what moved, who to answer, what it cost

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that it refreshes data and lists mentions/replies, implying read-only behavior consistent with annotations. It also adds a note about third-party content being data, not instructions, which is a behavioral safeguard. However, it does not elaborate on potential side effects beyond that, though annotations already cover safety.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense sentence that packs a lot of information: purpose, key metrics, time windows, and a note. It starts with a clear header 'The morning-briefing tool' and front-loads the core idea. While it is long, every clause carries value, making it appropriately concise for the breadth of functionality.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and a behavioral note about third-party content. It implies the output (a briefing with metrics) but does not explicitly describe the return format, which is acceptable since no output schema is provided. Overall, it is complete for the tool's apparent complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema descriptions for 'posts' and 'mentions' are clear ('How many of your recent posts to refresh', 'How many recent mentions to scan'). The tool description references these parameters indirectly by mentioning 'recent posts' and 'new mentions', providing context on their purpose. Since schema coverage is 100% and the descriptions are adequate, the added value is moderate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it is a morning-briefing tool that aggregates account metrics, mentions, replies, and spend. It uses a concise summary phrase 'what moved, who to answer, what it cost' and explicitly lists all features, making its purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives an explicit usage directive: 'Call this first in every session.' This unambiguously tells the agent when to invoke this tool, positioning it as the initial overview step. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the 'first in every session' instruction is a strong guideline.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.